If you're really gonna start in 150 AD and end in 1453 AD, please do something about the Persians. The time the Persians themselves were true enemies to the Romans was 'only' between 224 and ca. 630. Before, you should have the Parthians in, and before you ask, it would be inaccurate to jam them into one civ; though that might still work, but after 630, you should exclude them entirely! Their place would be taken by, chronologically, Arabs (630-ca.1000), Turks (1000-1220), and Mongols (1220-1500).
And apart from that, choosing Chosroes II as their leader isn't the best idea either. He wasn't such a great king as it is always proclaimed. He was really the one entirely responsible for the downfall of the Sasanian empire. Shapur I or II would be the, IMHO, best choices, as these two kings were really the ones who gave the Romans a hard time (S. II would be the very best choice, as he actually subdued the East Romans to tributary dependance, which lasted until Chosroes I).
Follow the masses!
30,000 lemmings can't be wrong!
Sorry, I was mistaken, it was Chosroes (Xusro or Husrav) I Anoshirvan (531-579) who achieved that tributary dependance; but I do believe you intended to make Chosroes II Parviz (sp) (590-628) ruler of Persia; he was the one who conquered Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine and Egypt, and besieged Byzantium; still he was the one who brought about the downfall of Persia.
I'd stick with Shapur II (309-379).
Follow the masses!
30,000 lemmings can't be wrong!
Stefan; whatever You could say about Parthians, the core of thier empire was what we know as Persia - and that's about it in fact.
Except for Romans, who lasted up to XV century, no other state could be included in the game if we wanted to include the cibs to last from the start to the end of the game.
And it's nothing wrong in eliminating Persians in the middle of the game.
To Heresson
> Primo, the title of Roman emperor was sold by
> members of imperial family
> to several mights in the west
Yes, ONE title - to SEVERAL mights :-) That Andrew Palaeologus, Thoma's son, was a real beggar and rogue; because of this fact all his rights of the great and sacred title of Roman Emperor were lost.
Sophia wasn't a catholic (pope and his people thought so - as they thought and was mistaken, that Ioann III really wanted to turn to catholicism), she was devoted to Orthodoxy and became the wife of the orthodoxal ruler, who was related and have connections with more ancient Roman emperors (for example, Anna Porphyrogeneta).
"Two Romes are fallen, The Third is standing and a Fourth there'll not be!".
P.S. I have nothing against Poland, Polish nation and you personally :-)
To tanelorn
Fully agree with your position! ;-)
> Ivan I got married to the last Byzantine Princess <...>
not Ivan I, but III.
From what I remember, the earlier Byzantine marriage of Rurik dinasty was childless. Anyway no-one gave Russia the right to claim themselves the successors of Rome except
for itself. Don't get me wrong - I don't consider Charlemagne
a true emperor as well. Remember that Mehmed II Fatih also claimed to be the successor of Roman emperors as well.
And He had more reasons to do that. Russia never ruled
(escept for little parts of northern coasts of Black Sea)
the same lands as Romans. If France was conquered by
Germany lets say, could Ireland or Spain claim that it is its successor?
1462-1505 Ivan the III. Typo. Mea Culpa. The Palaiologos family ended up in Barbados or so I've heard. Historically:
Costantine's brothers and even his mother conspired for the throne till the last minute, really. They even collaborated with the Turks at some point (the brothers, Thomas and Demetrius, that is) They kept fighting eachother even after the Turks occupied the despotate of Morea.
Demetrius Palaiologos ranks right next to Kantacuzenos as a traitor IMHO. He gave Morea to his Turkish allies without a fight. Died as a monk, in Hadrianople.
Thomas died in Rome at 1465, trying to gather an army to invade his former fiefdom.
The Palaiologos family that survives in Athens are probably descended from Gretzas Palaiologos, the garisson commander of the Soulmeniko fort, which he held for more than a year, before retreating to Naupactos (Lepanto) held by Venice.
Panathinaikos got a 1-1 draw in Costantinople yesterday, vs Fener Bahtse.
The next play is in Athens.
I don't consider myself to be a nationalist, by the way, so all this feels a bit awkward.
My God! Don't argue, it's just a game, right?
VERY GOOD graphic Tanelorn. Your ideas are usefull. I will not however give the Romans a Varangian for every Viking killed. That will propably raise the Varangians to the status of an Army rather than an elite guard. But it is not final.
To Stefan Hortel.
Actually i was planning to have the Parthians and Persians as one civ. The Persians took over Parthia in 226 AD. However i don't plan to eradicate them at a specific date. This is a civ game, history can be altered. Since the only playable civ will be the Romans, things might go a long way off historical accuracy. Northern Africa might not fall to the Vandals(Although the Jihad will propably not be avoided), while the British Legions might never depart for Gallia, leaving the island undefended.
"Military training has three purposes: 1)To save ourselves from becoming subjects to others, 2)to win for our own city a possition of leadership, exercised for the benefit of others and 3)to exercise the rule of a master over those who deserve to be treated as slaves."-Aristotle, The Politics, Book VII
All those who want to die, follow me!
Last words of Emperor Constantine XII Palaiologos, before charging the Turkish hordes, on the 29th of May 1453AD.
The greatest problem i am currently facing is the transformation of the Roman army in the 3rd-4th Century. The frontier defense fell to the "Limitanei" units -a few hundred strong- which were only to locate the invaders and slow them until the newly formed regional field armies intervened. These armies were stationed in Thrace and Syria(Have not located one in the west yet.Please send info). The Roman army had completely changed character.
"Military training has three purposes: 1)To save ourselves from becoming subjects to others, 2)to win for our own city a possition of leadership, exercised for the benefit of others and 3)to exercise the rule of a master over those who deserve to be treated as slaves."-Aristotle, The Politics, Book VII
All those who want to die, follow me!
Last words of Emperor Constantine XII Palaiologos, before charging the Turkish hordes, on the 29th of May 1453AD.
The Roman invaded and captured Dacia in 105 AD. However all maps i have (i'll post next week-away from home) show the locations of the Roman legions up to 80 AD. Little will have changed untill the 150s but for Dacia. There are 5 legions stationed in the Danube front which does not include Dacia as a province. I have read books and maps but all refer to the area as the "Danube front" Were the legions moved "upwards" to defend Dacia as well?. Any info? I will post detailed map next week to explain.
"Military training has three purposes: 1)To save ourselves from becoming subjects to others, 2)to win for our own city a possition of leadership, exercised for the benefit of others and 3)to exercise the rule of a master over those who deserve to be treated as slaves."-Aristotle, The Politics, Book VII
All those who want to die, follow me!
Last words of Emperor Constantine XII Palaiologos, before charging the Turkish hordes, on the 29th of May 1453AD.
Any info on the locations of the Roman navies? Numbers?
I know they were about 700 ships at Octavianus' reign but in a hundred years or so when my scenario starts things will propably have changed. The Imperial navy was Greek in character and origin and thus considered an "auxiliary" unit.
"Military training has three purposes: 1)To save ourselves from becoming subjects to others, 2)to win for our own city a possition of leadership, exercised for the benefit of others and 3)to exercise the rule of a master over those who deserve to be treated as slaves."-Aristotle, The Politics, Book VII
All those who want to die, follow me!
Last words of Emperor Constantine XII Palaiologos, before charging the Turkish hordes, on the 29th of May 1453AD.
Actually i was planning to have the Parthians and Persians as one civ. The Persians took over Parthia in 226 AD.
However i don't plan to eradicate them at a specific date. This is a civ game, history can be altered. Since the only
playable civ will be the Romans, things might go a long way off historical accuracy. Northern Africa might not fall to
the Vandals(Although the Jihad will propably not be avoided), while the British Legions might never depart for Gallia,
leaving the island undefended.
The Persians "officially" took over Parthia after April 28th 224.
As for the rest, I'm not saying that you should eradicate the Persian civ, but if Persia is going to fall to the Arabs in any case, it would simply be a waste of civs. Why don't you have an isolated city that prevents the Persians from being whiped out, let the Arabs and Turks conquer Persia, and give the Persians a grande retourné (amateur French) as the Mongols, for instance? That wouldn't even be historically inaccurate, since Persia was more or less independent since the Mongol empire split up (the Ilkhanate began in 1251 IIRC). Of course, that doesn't have much to do with Rome at that time anymore, but anyway...
The Roman invaded and captured Dacia in 105 AD. However all maps i have (i'll post next week-away from home)
show the locations of the Roman legions up to 80 AD. Little will have changed untill the 150s but for Dacia. There
are 5 legions stationed in the Danube front which does not include Dacia as a province. I have read books and
maps but all refer to the area as the "Danube front" Were the legions moved "upwards" to defend Dacia as well?.
Any info? I will post detailed map next week to explain.
I know for sure that one legion was stationed at Sarmizegethusa. There were also legion camps and castles scattered throughout Dacia, the most notable one at Potaissa (south of Klausenburg; there was also one at Klausenburg itself, the Roman name being Napoca). The northernmost point in Dacia I can find is Porolissum, directly at the border (somewhat northwest of modern-day Dej in Romania). But there was apparently only one legion in Dacia for sure, I'll see if I can find the name, if you want to know it.
Any info on the locations of the Roman navies? Numbers?
In the 3d century (but propably also in the 2nd century AD), the Roman navies were harboured in Alexandria, Seleucia (Syria, near Antiochia), Trapezus, Neapolis and Ravenna. There weren't many changes afterward, but during Diocletian's reign, Ptolemais (Cyrenaica) was added, and Seleucia seems to have been moved to Isauria (southern Turkey), but that could as well be a mistake of my map.
As for the mid-2nd century, this is what I could gather:
Main harbours were Ravenna and Misenum (north of Neapolis). Provincial fleets were harboured in Gesoriacum (Banomia) in Gaul, Forum Iulíi (near Massalia), Alexandria, somewhere near Byzantium (Perinthus, I guess) and Trapezus.
That's about it, I guess. I don't know anything about the numbers. I hope I could still help you there.
Follow the masses!
30,000 lemmings can't be wrong!
Three additions to be made on those harbours. Provincial fleets were also stationed in Europe, at the Danube and Rhine rivers (so you may want to make those navigable), at Oescus (Moesia Inferior), Aquineum (Pannonia) and at or near Colonia Traiana (Utrecht, perhaps, or else, somewhere between Utrecht and Cologne).
Follow the masses!
30,000 lemmings can't be wrong!
A document called the Notitia Dignitatum gives a virtually complete order of battle for the field armies of the Western Empire in c. 420AD and the Eastern empire in c. 395AD. I have details of the following:Originally posted by Palaiologos
The greatest problem i am currently facing is the transformation of the Roman army in the 3rd-4th Century. The frontier defense fell to the "Limitanei" units -a few hundred strong- which were only to locate the invaders and slow them until the newly formed regional field armies intervened. These armies were stationed in Thrace and Syria(Have not located one in the west yet.Please send info). The Roman army had completely changed character.
Main western field army (army of the magister militum intra italium - based in Italy)
Field army of the magister equitum intra gallias (Gaul)
Field army of the comes tingitaniae (moroco)
Field army of the comes africae (tunisia and algeria)
Field army of the comes britanniae (nominally britain)
Field army of the magister militum praesentalis I and II (main eastern field armies in Greece and asia minor)
Field army of the magister militum per orientem (Syria)
The field armies consisted of vexillationes Palatinae and vexillationes comitatenses (both cavalry units); legiones palatinae and legiones comitatenses; auxilia palatina and pseudocomitatenses (all infantry). The palatina units were the original field army units set up by Diocletian whilst the comitatenses were frontier forces that had been absorbed into the field armies. Pseudocomitatenses were temporarily asigned to the field armies. In addition, there were units of scholae (guards) who replaced the disbanded Praetorians.
I also have a few examples of limitani and ripenses (frontier troops based on rivers) forces for the various Dux commanding the fixed armies on the frontier. Essentially, these were the old legions and auxillia, minus a few that had been taken into the field armies as pseudocomitatenses. If you want, I can e-mail the orders of battle
Last edited by fairline; November 1, 2002 at 18:33.
Well, why dont you visit http://www.friesian.com/romania.htmOriginally posted by Palaiologos
for heaps of info on the subject?
To Heresson (about "Russian claims" and the Third Rome):
According to the writings of monk Philotheus: Constantinople was captured physically (like Rome - spiritually); but Roman Empire is undestructible as «the Empire of the same age with Christ» [C.G. Pitsakis], and Russia succeeded it, remained the only keeper of the Ortodoxal Christianity (Roman Empire, «Tzarstvo Romeiskoe» in this case isn’t political or territorial, but mostly spiritual term).
Dec. 1560. Constantinopolian Patriarch Ioasaf II sent to Ioann IV the Charta, signed by The Counsil of 36 Greek metropolitans and bishops. Moscow Tzar Ioann IV was considered as successor from the branch of Roman emperors (from greek princess Anna Porphyrogeneta, Basilius’ II sister). I must also tell (don’t mix them!) about Anna, the sister of Basilius II Dmitrievich, who became the wife of Ioann VIII Palaeologus.
(By the way: this Charta was delivered to Moscow by metropolitan of Kizik, Ioasaf - but wasn’t presented to our Tzar - because of dirty intrigues of Polish ruler)
The next step, from the prophesy - to the law: 1589. Ulozhennaya Gramota (The Code) (it was one of the most important documents in our history, the appointment of the first russian patriarch). Signed by many high church hierarchs and by Constantinopolian Patriarch Ieremia, who wrote there: «...tvoe zhe, o blagochestivyi tzaryu, velikoe Rossijskoe tzarstvie, Tretei Rim, blagochestiem vseh prevzyde, i vsya blagochestivaya tzarstvie v tvoe v edino sobrasya, i ty edin pod nebesem hristianskii tzar imenueshis’ v vsej vselennei, vo vseh hristianeh» [«Your, o pious tzar, is the great Rossian state (tzarstvo), the Third Rome <...> and all pious states are united in your, and you are the only christian tzar in the universe, of all christians»]. There was another significant phrase in this gramota: «The great Rossian and Greek state»!
Are these facts enough for you? (if not - I have more arguments... :-))
To tanelorn:
The last from Palaeolog family died in 1874, in Turin, for all I know. What about Barbados?
> Panathinaikos got a 1-1 draw in Costantinople yesterday,
> vs Fener Bahtse. The next play is in Athens.
Lokomotiv(M) won 2:1 in the match vs. Galatasaray. This is symbolic tendency, isn’t it?)
About Barbados, I'm just joking ofcourse.
There only appears to be a gravestone with the name there, from the 17th c.
Palaiologos is not an uncommon name, you see.
I'm really into soccer, but politics, well, are not my thing.
On this whole dynastic issue however, I think one of you guys, Aleksandr (what a great name- "one that chases/scares men away"), once said not to judge something by its originality, but by its outcome (more or less, I don't memorize quotes).
Makes a point.
He had a pointy beard, after all.
To Palaiologos:
(may be, too early question): what are you planning about siege weaponry/machines in your scenario?
Proposals:
Byzantine Fire siphons???
Turkish Bombards???
Crusader Trebuschets???
Wall breaching teams (you know, to under-mine walls)
I have a fire siphon picture somewhere...
Fairline please send the e-mail. I too have the Notia Dignitatum (at least parts of it in Peter Connoly's "Greece and Rome at War") but only read it yesterday after my posts here.
Stefan Hortel thanks a lot about the locations of the Roman navies-really a lot.
I don't however plan to make the Danube and Rhine navigable.
"Military training has three purposes: 1)To save ourselves from becoming subjects to others, 2)to win for our own city a possition of leadership, exercised for the benefit of others and 3)to exercise the rule of a master over those who deserve to be treated as slaves."-Aristotle, The Politics, Book VII
All those who want to die, follow me!
Last words of Emperor Constantine XII Palaiologos, before charging the Turkish hordes, on the 29th of May 1453AD.
About the Roman Army's transformation:
I will not have a "limitanei" unit neither will i force the player to adopt the "field army" strategy that anyways proved ineffective. Afterall the units that formed the limitanei were only the remnants of the old and proud legions. They kept their original names (Legio V Macedonica for instance) but were only shadows of their strengh-at most 1000 strong. The legion unit will become obsolete after a tech is acquired and the player will only build the new type "Legion" that formed the field armies. If he likes he may post them at the borders.
"Military training has three purposes: 1)To save ourselves from becoming subjects to others, 2)to win for our own city a possition of leadership, exercised for the benefit of others and 3)to exercise the rule of a master over those who deserve to be treated as slaves."-Aristotle, The Politics, Book VII
All those who want to die, follow me!
Last words of Emperor Constantine XII Palaiologos, before charging the Turkish hordes, on the 29th of May 1453AD.
About the Persians: I intended to use Chosroes I as their leader, but Shapur is a fine choice too. The Huns will be represented as barbarians so the Turks will be a civ themselves. The Persians might never be conquered by the Mongols or the Arabs(hard but not impossible). IT IS A CIV GAME.
About the war machines: Due to the lack of available unit slots the war machines will be limited. I intented to have a generic onager or trebuchet, a Greek fire thrower and an early bombard.
"Military training has three purposes: 1)To save ourselves from becoming subjects to others, 2)to win for our own city a possition of leadership, exercised for the benefit of others and 3)to exercise the rule of a master over those who deserve to be treated as slaves."-Aristotle, The Politics, Book VII
All those who want to die, follow me!
Last words of Emperor Constantine XII Palaiologos, before charging the Turkish hordes, on the 29th of May 1453AD.
All You have proven Serb is that You considered yourself
the third Rome...
And that some Greeks were so desperated to get help from You that they pretended they don't see difference between
th Empire and a northern barbarious horde...
As the only big remain of orthodox world, Muscovian state could count on treating it as the substitute for the Empire,
the only place where the true religion is alive
(though note; at the end of the Constantionopolitan Empire,
there was no unity of Russian and Greek church)
But there's no direct link between Rome and Russia,
no emperor moved to Moscow, no patriarch,
and no opinion of no-one will change that; Popes willingly called France "the oldest daughter of the Church",
which doesn't change the fact that they weren't what they were called.
Oh, I hear the words of envy and ignorance, which are traditional for all barbariansOriginally posted by Heresson
> (though note; at the end of the Constantionopolitan Empire,
> there was no unity of Russian and Greek church)
At the end of the Constantionopolitan Empire, there was no unity among the parts of Greek church: there were not only Uniats, but Orthodoxes too.
> But there's no direct link between Rome and Russia,
> no emperor moved to Moscow, no patriarch <...>
Following Your logic, there is no direct link between, for example, pre-Latin and post-Latin Constantionopolitan Empire (or, may be, between Rome and Constantinople?)...
Even if Your view is too materialistic to consider the things connected with ancient prophecies/ideas (as aeternitas imperii and translatio imperii) and Providence, but there are also: 1) the religion; 2) the culture; 3) the principles of power; 4) the same moments of history; 5) symbols, documents, genealogical links...etc.; in two words - the state and cultural model, or the civilization, is the same.
There was that Aleksandr Nievsky film on TV yesterday
There are things to say, but I fear I will aggravate spirits even further. So let things be. This is just a game.
I am currently painting that fire siphon. Palaiologos, I 'll post it here and you can tell me what you think of it.
To Aleksandr: I love the "Icon and Flame" scenario. One of my grandparents was from the "flame" heartland, you see.
To Heresson: I want to paint a polish PZL P37 Los, but I only have a blurry black and white picture of the front section. Any hints?
Actually, The Russians ARE Barbarians. The Mongol subjugation (1240- 1480 a.d.) has had such an impact upon the Russians that their way of clothing, their language and customs were completely changed, they actually BECAME the Mongols. History has given us a good example in the form of Ivan Grozni. The last shred of old Russia died in 1478 A.D., when the Mocsovites destroyed the republic of Novogorod.
The same goes for the Greeks, for they were/are quite Turkicized.
Oh, and you should use the Persians for the invasion of the Roman empire during Phocas's and Heraclius's reign.
You should probably destroy the Persians altogether then.
About the Persians: I intended to use Chosroes I as their leader, but Shapur is a fine choice too. The Huns will be
represented as barbarians so the Turks will be a civ themselves. The Persians might never be conquered by the
Mongols or the Arabs(hard but not impossible). IT IS A CIV GAME.
Alternate option for the conquest would simply be allying the Persians with the Arabs and Turks (thus entirely excluding the Mongols). This would work if there was a peaceful way of changing the owners of Mesopotamia...
But on the other hand, after Mesopotamia was conquered by the Arabs, there was no more impact Persia had on Byzantium. Of course it's only a game, but if there are so many different ways of making it historically accurate and yet fun to play, they should be taken into consideration. For example, you could simply 'turn' the Persians into the Mongols later on by giving them a new tech with new units and a new city style (Industrialization would work fine, especially because the cities appear so much smaller afterwards, so you'd also have the illusion that there really was a bloody conquest).
Actually, The Russians ARE Barbarians. The Mongol subjugation (1240- 1480 a.d.) has had such an impact upon the
Russians that their way of clothing, their language and customs were completely changed, they actually BECAME
the Mongols. History has given us a good example in the form of Ivan Grozni. The last shred of old Russia died in
1478 A.D., when the Mocsovites destroyed the republic of Novogorod.
The same goes for the Greeks, for they were/are quite Turkicized.
This claim works only if you define the Mongols as Barbarians, which I personally don't do, the same goes for Turks.
Oh, and you should use the Persians for the invasion of the Roman empire during Phocas's and Heraclius's reign.
You should probably destroy the Persians altogether then.
We had this discussed already. The invasion you describe is the one I already mentioned, the one done by Chosroes II. Apart from that, it was rather a large-scale war that lasted for several decades, than an invasion.
Follow the masses!
30,000 lemmings can't be wrong!
Sorry, but it is quite absurd.Originally posted by Valuk
Actually, The Russians ARE Barbarians. The Mongol subjugation (1240- 1480 a.d.) has had such an impact upon the Russians that their way of clothing, their language and customs were completely changed, they actually BECAME the Mongols. History has given us a good example in the form of Ivan Grozni. The last shred of old Russia died in 1478 A.D., when the Mocsovites destroyed the republic of Novogorod.
The same goes for the Greeks, for they were/are quite Turkicized.
Yes, the tataro-mongol yoke had some cultural influence on Russia and Russians («Panta rei...», and the Russian people, of course, slightly changed in something to «mongolic» side), but this doesn’t mean, that «they actually became the Mongols».
> History has given us a good example in the form of Ivan Grozni.
> The last shred of old Russia died in 1478 A.D., when the Mocsovites
> destroyed the republic of Novogorod.
a good example of WHAT?!
And about Novgorod «republic»: it would be incorrect to speak about Novgorod in such way - it was an old (of course) but side shred.
> There was that Aleksandr Nievsky film on TV yesterdayOriginally posted by tanelorn
Great film! «Who will come to us with a sword, die of a sword!»
> There are things to say, but I fear I will aggravate spirits even further.
> So let things be. This is just a game.
Don’t worry; it’s a normal discussion
> To Aleksandr: I love the "Icon and Flame" scenario.
Thanks, glad to hear it!
But I have some problems (lack of ideas...) with the «Artavasdos line» of the plot. May be, You have some «what-if» ideas?
> One of my grandparents was from the "flame" heartland, you see.
Please, in details: it’s interesting.
I didn't know that You consider these the typical features of yourself...Oh, I hear the words of envy and ignorance, which are traditional for all barbarians
The emperor was uniate, and so was the legal patrarch.At the end of the Constantionopolitan Empire, there was no unity among the parts of Greek church: there were not only Uniats, but Orthodoxes too.
I'm not quite sure what do You mean by pre-latin and post-latin.Following Your logic, there is no direct link between, for example, pre-Latin and post-Latin Constantionopolitan Empire (or, may be, between Rome and Constantinople?)...
If the change of the official language - it was done in the
middle of reign of one emperor, so there's a definite link here. When it comes to the Empire of before 1204 and after 1261, there's a direct link, as Theodor Lascaris was proclaimed the emperor in Constantinople during the siege, and reigned on the territories earlier belonging to the Empire.
Rome and Constantinople - don't be silly. The link is the ruler, the state, the religion, the language (later it evolutioned in another direction but that doesn't change a thing), etc.
Russia was a state of completely other roots than Rome/Byzantium, other structure, other history, not quite the same culture, completely different geographical base.
That's why its claims to the heritage of Rome and Byzantium can't be treated seriously.
When it comes to dynastical thing - people connected with dinasty of some state may claim to the throne of it perhaps... May claim to the title perhaps... But not to saying that their old state is continuation of the state to which throne they claim to.
Valuk is right about the Russians and Mongols.
Stefan - Mongols were barbarians at start at least .
Bulgarians and Serbians also imitated the culture of Byzantium and claimed for The imperial throne. Some of their rulers, like STefan Duszan, gave themselves the title of "Greek" or "roman" emperor - which doesn't mean thata good example of WHAT?! In the reign of Ivan Grozny (let?s keep silence about human qualities of this ruler - it?s a difficult thing to analyze) were finally formed the doctrine of sovereign power, the ceremony of anointing, the court ceremonies - all based on Roman/Byzantine political ideas and examples in conformity to local conditions.
they had any right to it. Me, myself, I treat Russian claims as the last example of earlier barbarious claims to the title. No matter what they were - Frankish, Bulgarian, or
Serbian, or Russian, they deserve the same laugh.
I don't agree with Valuk's note over Ivan... Byzantine emperors weren't good either. Though they weren't killing their own sons and raping his wife...
Oh, and one more thing...
Do you know who saved Vienna from the Turks in 1683?
It sure wasn't the Russian car
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks